R.S. MISRA vs UOI & ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VADYALAYA SANGTHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: April 29, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 7869/2007, CM APPL. 15855/2017
R.S. MISRA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv. / Amicus Curiae
versus
UOI & ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER
KENDRIYA VADYALAYA SANGTHAN ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. S Rajappa and
Mr. Gowrishankar, Advs.
AND
+ CONT.CAS(C) 993/2022, CM APPL. 41260/2022
RS MISRA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv. / Amicus Curiae.
versus
NIDHI PANDEY ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. S Rajappa and
Mr. R Gowrishankar, Advs.
AND
+ CONT.CAS(C) 996/2022, CM APPL. 41282/2022
RS MISRA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv. / Amicus Curiae.
versus
NIDHI PANDEY ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. S Rajappa and
Mr. R Gowrishankar, Advs.
AND
+ CONT.CAS(C) 998/2022, CM APPL. 41286/2022
RS MISRA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv. / Amicus Curiae.
versus
NIDHI PANDEY ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. S Rajappa and R Gowrishankar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
W.P.(C) 7869/2007
1. This writ petition being W.P.(C) 7869/2007 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated August 29, 2006 and November 07, 2006 in Original Application No. 2531/2005 (OA, for short) and Review Application No.168/2006 (RA, for short)respectively, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short), with the following prayers:-
v) quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 29.8.06 and 7.11.06 in O.A. No. 2531/05 & R.A. No. 168/06 respectively passed by Hon’ble CAT.
vi) To quash and set-aside the DPC minutes proceedings held on 04.3.2005.
vii) Direct the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of vice-principal from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay with 24% interest;
viii) Pass such other or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts as noted from the record are that, the petitioner joined Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS, for short) as TGT (Science) on August 26, 1972. Later he was appointed as PGT (Chemistry) via direct selection on August 02, 1976. He was terminated from service under Article 81 (b) of Education Code, on February 11, 1988. He challenged the said order of termination. This Court had set aside the termination order and directed the respondent to reinstate the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The petitioner on October 3, 2000, was reinstated in service. He was posted / transferred to K.V. No.1, Imphal. The respondents stand was that the period from February 11, 1988 till the date of his joining duty at Imphal shall be treated as dies non in view of FR 56 (3).
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed CCP No. 151/2001 for the grant of consequential benefits, the KVS paid ?11,48,625/-. Noting this development, the petition was disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 15214/2006, for interest on delayed payments. The same was disposed of vide order dated February 02, 2009, wherein this Court had granted the interest on delayed payments and Senior Scale of PGT w.e.f. July 02, 1988. However, his claim for grant of Selection Grade was rejected.
4. During his service in Imphal, in February 2001, another complaint of sexual harassment was filed against the petitioner by two girls students of class 11 of Art Section to the Principal, KV, Lamphelpat. The Secretary, Government of Manipur, who is also the Chairman, VMC, KV No.1, forwarded the complaint to the Commissioner, KVS. An Enquiry Committee was setup by the Commissioner, KVS, wherein, the Committee, prima facie, found the petitioner guilty of moral turpitude towards girl students. The report of the Committee was accepted by the Commissioner, who did not find expedient to conduct regular inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner on March 31, 2003.
5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the issuance of the show cause notice filed the OA.2008/2003 before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the O.A, the Commissioner, KVS, passed an order terminating the petitioners services with immediate effect. The petitioner was relieved vide order dated November 07, 2003. The Tribunal stayed the termination order.
6. The stay order was challenged before this Court wherein this court held that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service with payment of 50% of his salary during the period, subject to the outcome of the O.A. It was also directed by this Court, to the petitioner, not to enter the school premises for discharge of his duties during the pendency of the O.A. The KVS challenged the said order before the Supreme Court, which SLP was dismissed.
7. The Tribunal has set aside the termination order and granted liberty to KVS to conduct fresh departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The Commissioner, KVS passed a fresh order dated January 24, 2006, terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect under Article 81(b) of the KVS Education Code. Thereafter, the petitioner filed various litigations like Original Application, Writ Petition and Appeals before the Tribunal, this Court and the Supreme Court against his termination. He did not succeed and his termination attained finality, till the Supreme Court.
8. At the outset, we may state here that the challenge in this writ petition is to the dismissal of O.A 2531/2005 and R.A 168/2006.
9. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was of promotion. It was his case that his, immediate junior, Mrs. Swaran Bakshi, was promoted to the post of Vice Principal in 1996 and as such the petitioner is also entitled to be considered for promotion as Vice Principal from the same date. A review DPC was constituted for considering the petitioners case on March 04, 2005, which did not find him fit for promotion on the ground that he did not meet the required benchmark Good. Aggrieved by his non-promotion, he filed the O.A. 2531/2005.
10. It was his case that, the ACRs and service record, on the basis of which he was to be granted promotion to the post of Vice-Principal, are the same records considered for grant of Senior Scale. Therefore the denial of promotion to the post of Vice-Principal is unjust and illegal.
11. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the Screening Committee has right to access and evaluate the service record and ACRs of the petitioner to classify whether he is fit or unfit for promotion. The benchmark for the post is Good. The petitioner was terminated on February 11, 1988. He was later reinstated in service on October 30, 2000. Thereafter, he was considered for promotion to the post of Vice Principal in the year 1996, when his juniors were promoted. As there was no service record of the petitioner for the period from February 11, 1988 to October 30, 2000, available, the DPC assessed and evaluated the service record and ACRs of the petitioner prior to the date of his initial termination, i.e., ACRs of 1984-1988.
12. The Tribunal held that the copies of the ACRs were produced before the Court and it is clear that the petitioner was awarded Good in the year 1984 but in the years 1986-88, his work and conduct was reported as Average. Therefore, the Screening Committee has a right to classify the petitioner / applicant as fit or unfit in relation to the benchmark Good. Therefore, the procedure and the decision of the DPC cannot be faulted.
13. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed CM No. 20689/2014 seeking review of ACRs for the period of 1987-1988, CM No.6664/2015 for compliance of orders dated August 06, 2014 and December 19, 2014. CM No. 15855/2017, seeking direction for giving effect to the order dated July 31, 2015, wherein this Court directed the respondent to carry out a review DPC.
In CM. No. 10734/2019, the petitioner is seeking for release of pension, gratuity and other benefits with 12% interest per annum. This Court has dismissed the said plea as the petitioner was terminated by the respondent and the said termination was upheld by the Tribunal, this Court and by the Supreme Court, as termination from service leads to forfeiture of pension and gratuity.
14. Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae stated that the petitioner had filed an OA 2522/2003 and 2520/2003 seeking specific directions to the respondent to grant benefit of Senior Scale and consequential Selection Grade. The Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the respondent to consider his claim for grant of Senior Scale and if found fit, to grant all consequential benefits. The respondent considered the claim of the petitioner for Senior Scale and found him fit but promotion to the post of Vice Principal was denied to him.
15. According to him, when the petitioner was found fit for grant of Senior Scale particularly when the benchmark and the records being same, the respondent could not have denied him the promotion to the post of Vice Principal. He also stated that, he was selected twice for foreign assignments to Bhutan and Tanzania through Ministry of Home Affairs, which is only possible when the ACRs and the service records of the petitioner are commendable.
16. He by placing reliance on the order of this Court, dated August 6, 2014, had observed that the petitioners ACR for the years 1987 and 1988 were not communicated to him. The relevant paragraph of the said order is reproduced as under:
5. This Court has carefully considered the submission and the records. The basic grievance of the petitioner was that in 1996 a teacher junior to him in the cadre of PGT was promoted as Vice-Principal and he ought to have been given the same benefit. Quite naturally, the KVS did not have the benefit of ascertaining his performance for the 12 year period that he was out of service between 1988-2000. Before this, the relevant period for assessing his suitability was 1984 to 1988. While, it cannot be disputed that the previous order of the CAT did not expressly direct the re-consideration of ACRs based upon the representation by the petitioner, it is equally a matter of fact that the adverse remarks indicating drop in the performance for 1987 and 1988 were never communicated. The Review DPC which undertook the exercise in this case, therefore, naturally looked into the same record and perhaps reached the same result. In the Review Petition, there are clear pleadings to the effect that the writ petitioner represented against the adverse ACRs for the period 1987 and 1988. Although the decision in Dev Dutt (supra) and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) were rendered after 2004, we cannot accept KVSs submissions that the law declared applies prospectively. That is neither the purport nor the intent of those two judgments and nothing in the declaration of Supreme Court leads us to that conclusion. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondent KVS is directed to deal with the representations of petitioner and communicate its decision as to whether they, or either of them, is accepted, and, based upon their outcome, carry out the Review DPC. In case, the petitioner is found eligible, the promotion would be on the basis of the next below rule. The entire exercise shall be carried out within eight weeks.
The writ petition is allowed.
17. He stated that, this court in CM No. 6664/2015, wherein the petitioner sought direction to the respondent to consider his representation against adverse remarks in his ACRs of 1987 and 1988, directed the respondent to consider the petitioners representation towards his promotion to the post of Vice-Principal as on date, i.e., May 16, 1996, when his junior Ms. Swaran Bakshi was promoted to the post. He also stated that the DPC could not have assessed the petitioner as Average when they have already granted the Senior Scale to the petitioner. He also stated that the Average benchmark is an adverse remark in the ACR of the years 1987-88, which was not communicated to the petitioner and such an adverse remark cannot be taken into consideration for promotion. He also stated, this Court vide order dated July 31, 2015, has stated that according to the existing instructions, the petitioners grading for the year 1987-1988 would have to be read as very good, in view of the fact that the ACR of the previous year, i.e., 1985-1986 was very good. The relevant paragraph of the order dated July 31, 2015 in this writ petition is reproduced as under:
It is quite evident that the petitioner was never communicatet. with the “average” grading ACRs at any relevant point of time either contemporaneously in 1987-88 nor even after judgment of the Court. This position emerged when the learned counsel for the KVS, with reluctance, agreed that the adverse ACRs were never communicated and also based on the record, i.e. the Memorandum of 21.11.2014 he said that the records were not available. In these circumstances, the direction of this Court in the final judgment dated 06.08.2014 has clearly not been worked-out. The writ petitioner has produced an annexure P-7 – the grading given to the petitioner by the employer/ borrowing department when he was out on deputation; it stated that the general conduct was “good” and efficiency was “very good”. Given that the respondents have now admitted in the memorandum dated 21.11.2014 that they do not possess the ACRs or documents pertaining to the petitioners grading for 1987-88, according to the existing instructions, his proposal for that period will have to be taken note of in terms of previous years. The judgment dated 06.08.2014 notes that the petitioner’s ACR grading for 1984-85 were “good” and “very good”. In the light of these facts, the respondents are hereby directed to take appropriate action towards the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Vice Principal as on the date, i.e. 16.05.1996 when his junior – Ms. Swaran Bakshi was promoted to that post. While doing so, it is further directed that the ACR gradings for 1984-85, 1985-86 shall also be considered. The KVS is hereby directed to pass orders in this regard within six weeks and grant consequential benefits as would accrue to the petitioner. Thus, according to the existing instructions, petitioner’s grading for 1987-88 would have to be read as “very good” in view of the fact that for the previous year 1985-86, it was “very good”. The application is allowed in the above terms.
18. He stated that this court vide order dated October 16, 2019 while disposing of the CM No. 10734/2019, has observed that the petitioner may claim compassionate allowance under Rule 69 (41) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in case the petitioner makes such claim or has already made the same, then the respondents were directed to deal with the same within four weeks.
19. He seeks the prayers as made in the instant writ petition.
20. Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel for the respondents stated that, vide judgment and order in O.A. 187/2015 dated March 22, 2022, the Tribunal had considered the case of the petitioner with regard to grant of Earned Leave (EL, for short) against un-availed joining time, which was paid to the petitioner and the OA was disposed of. He also stated that the respondent has made payment towards notional promotion including all admissible terminal benefits to the petitioner. He also stated that the Tribunal has also noted the fact that this Court has granted the promotion to the post of Vice Principal w.e.f. May 16, 1996 and the payments were made towards the same.
21. He stated that, this Court vide order dated July 23, 2012, had dismissed the case of the petitioner for considering the petitioners entitlement to the Selection Grade. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal against the order of this Court which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.26399-26400/2013, wherein the Supreme Court stated that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the DPC, and it did not find the petitioners service satisfactory, hence, denied the same.
22. He submitted that the grant of Selection Grade to the employees of the respondents is governed by Accounts Code of KVS which provides that the Senior Scale and the Selection Grade will be granted when the DPC is satisfied with the performance of the individual. He also stated that, every Teacher would be required to participate in an in-service training program of three weeks duration, and this aspect was considered by this Court. He also stated that this Court in W.P.(C) 3488/2017, has noted the fact that the petitioner has been granted the promotion to the post of Vice Principal w.e.f. May 16, 1996, by a way of memorandum dated July 16, 2006 with the approval of the Competent Authority. Therefore, the grant of Selection Grade to the petitioner is devoid of merit because only when an employee is denied the promotion, he or she will be given Senior Scale / Selection Grade.
23. Mr. Rajappa also stated that the KVS has rejected the petitioners plea for compassionate allowance in 2016 and the same was conveyed to the petitioner vide order dated November 27, 2019. He seeks dismissal of the instant petition.
CM APPL. 41260/2022 in CONT.CAS(C) 993/2022
CM APPL. 41282/2022 in CONT.CAS(C) 996/2022
CM APPL. 41286/2022 in CONT.CAS(C) 998/2022
24. These applications have been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 30 days, 15 days and 15 days respectively for filing the contempt petitions. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delays in filing the contempt petitions are condoned. Applications stand disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 993/2022
CONT.CAS(C) 996/2022
CONT.CAS(C) 998/2022
25. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner for compliance of the orders of this Court dated December 08, 2017, July 13, 2018 and October 16, 2019, respectively in W.P.(C) 7869/2007. The orders are reproduced as under:-
O R D E R
% 08.12.2017
It is stated that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) has issued a memorandum of 07.12.2017, denying the benefit of PGT selection grade to the review petitioner. The rationale is that the selection grade to PGTs is restricted to 20% of the number of posts and that Shri Misra did not complete 24 years of service as PGT and was therefore ineligible.
This Court notices that pursuant to the directions in these proceedings, Shri Misra who was initially appointed in 1976 would have, in the normal course, completed 24 years on 02.07.2000. Under directions, he has been even promoted to the post of Vice-Principal with effect from 16.05.1996. He was terminated on 24.01.2006. The code of the memorandum produced before the Court is unclear as to whether
(i) The PGT selection grade, which the petitioner would have been entitled to, as a matter of fact, because he did complete 24 years in 2000, could be denied merely because he was promoted notionally as Vice-Principal later with effect from 1996. In this context, the respective grades applicable to the post of Vice-Principal and the selection grade PGT should be disclosed by the KVS;
(ii) The petitioners claim for promotion on the next below rule between 16.05.1996 and 24.01.2006 as Principal should, in the opinion of the Court, again be considered, as in accordance with the state of affairs, existing during that period.
A decision in the above light shall be taken by the KVS and an appropriate affidavit filed within three weeks in this regard.
List on 09.03.2018.
O R D E R
% 13.07.2018
The order of 08.12.2017 had directed the respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to consider the petitioners claim for notional promotion as Principal on application for of the next below rule period between the period 16.05.1996 and 24.01.2006.
Mr.Rajappa, learned counsel for KVS has produced the original record which discloses that the KVS appears to have completely ignored the relevant facts. It has in fact cited two reasons for not granting the request:
(1) that the ACRs for 1987-88 were missing and that in its absence, he could not be promoted as Principal on the application of the next below rule.
In this Courts opinion, the view expressed on the file is facially contumacious besides being contrary to the record. Concededly, the petitioner was promoted notionally as Vice-Principal w.e.f. 16.05.1996, i.e. after the period 1987-88, having regard to the status of the record. In the circumstances, there appears to be no impediment at all to grant promotion on similar notional basis. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation in 2006 and the benefits which he would secure would be only notional, by way of pay and pension fixation etc.
Issue notice to the Commissioner – KVS, to be present in person in the Court on 27.07.2018.
O R D E R
% 16.10.2019
CM APPL. 10734/2019 (application for directions for release of gratuity, pension and other benefits)
1. This application has been filed by the Petitioner to seek the following directions:-
a. Direct the respondents to release all retiral benefits viz. pension, gratuity and other benefits.
b. Direct the respondents to pay 12% per annum interest for delayed payment in the interest of justice.
c. Pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. This application, in our view, is completely misconceived considering the facts that the services of the Petitioner were terminated by the Respondent and the said termination has been upheld by the Tribunal, by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The termination of service leads to forfeiture of pension and gratuity.
3. The Petitioner may, however, claim compassionate allowance under Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules. In case, he makes such claim or has already made the same, Respondents are directed to deal with the same and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.
4. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL. 15855/2017 (application for execution of final order of CM No. 6664/2018)
5. This application has been moved by the Petitioner to seek a direction to the Respondents to execute the final order passed in CM No. 6664/2015 in the present writ petition.
6. Let the Respondents file their reply to this application within four weeks with an advance copy to the Petitioner who may file the rejoinder, if any, before the next date.
7. List on 29.11.2019.
26. The plea of Mr. Singh in the CONT.CAS(C) 993/2022, is that this Court vide order dated December 08, 2017, had held that the PGT Selection Grade would have been entitled to the petitioner though he was promoted notionally as a Vice Principal w.e.f., 1996. He also stated that, by the order of this Court the respondents were required to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner w.e.f., July 02, 2000, with all consequential benefits but the respondents have defied this Courts order and not a single penny with respect to the selection grade has been paid to the petitioner.
27. The case of the petitioner in the CONT.CAS(C) 996/2022, is that this Court vide order dated July 13, 2018, had directed the respondents to release pension, gratuity, etc. of the petitioner with immediate effect. Whereas, the respondent has not released any amount towards pension and gratuity to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the office of the respondent and requested for the release of the same. He also stated that, despite a direction being issued by this Court, the respondent has not implemented the same against which the petitioner filed this contempt case.
28. The case of the petitioner in the CONT.CAS(C) 998/2022, is that this Court vide order dated October 16, 2019, had directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate allowance under Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules.
29. The plea of the petitioner is that, he has already made an application for the claim of compassionate allowance twice and the direction of this Court was defied by the respondent by not granting any amount with respect to compassionate allowance.
30. Mr. Rajappa has submitted that the application of the petitioner for compassionate allowance has been rejected way back in 2016 and the same was conveyed to the petitioner vide order dated November 27, 2019.
31. Having broadly noted the issues which have been raised in the application filed in the writ petition and contempt petitions and on perusal of the record / written submissions and having heard learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Rajappa, suffice to state that the writ petition was disposed of on August 6, 2014 in terms of paragraph 5 which we have already reproduced above. Four applications have been filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition. A reference to the same has been made in paragraph 13 above. Suffice to state that the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Vice-Principal w.e.f. May 16, 1996, and as per the affidavit filed by the respondent, the arrears of salary for the period May 16, 1996 to January 24, 2006 have been released to the petitioner.
32. The applications being CM Nos. 20689/2014 and 6664/2015 have already been disposed of. CM. No. 15855/2017 which has been filed for compliance of order dated July 31, 2015 does not survive for consideration as the order dated July 31, 2015 has been complied with by the respondent by granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Vice Principal and the same is accordingly disposed of, as being infructuous. Any claim of Second ACP, does not arise from the order of the tribunal or the orders passed by this Court. If so advised, he can seek such remedy as available in law.
33. Now coming to the CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 993/2022, 996/2022 and 998/2022, we have already reproduced the orders passed by this court, for whose non-compliance the contempt petitions have been filed.
34. Insofar as the CONT.CAS(C) 993/2022 is concerned, petitioners basic contention is that, in terms of the directions dated December 8, 2017, respondent was required to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner w.e.f July 2, 2000 with all consequential benefits immediately, but till date not a single penny has been paid to the petitioner. We may state that, no such direction was given by the Court; rather the direction was for filing of an appropriate affidavit by the respondent.
35. Be that as it may, the issue of grant of Selection Grade was raised by the petitioner in O.A. 2536/2005 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on August 29, 2006. Even the writ petition being W.P.(C) 7869/2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on July 23, 2013 and the Special Leave to Appeal no. 26399-26400/2013 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated November 25, 2014. Therefore, the claim of Selection Grade does not arise from the impugned orders dated August 29, 2006 and November 7, 2006 in OA No. 2531/2005 and in R.A 168/2006, respectively. Even otherwise, the issue having attained finality till the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot claim by way of an application / contempt petition the Selection Grade. Hence, this Contempt Petition is closed.
36. Similarly, in so far as the CONT.CAS(C) 996/2022, which has been filed alleging violation of order dated July 13, 2018 in CM. No. 15855/2017 in W.P.(C) 7869/2007 is concerned, the allegation of the petitioner is that, this Court had directed the respondent to release the pension, gratuity etc. immediately, but the respondent in defiance has not released the same. Insofar as this issue of release of pension and gratuity is concerned, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent on February 7, 2014. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred an O.A No. 2878/2014, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated November 4, 2015. Against the said order, petitioner filed a petition being W.P.(C) 1795/2016 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated March 2, 2016. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated March 2, 2016 are reproduced as under:
7.The petitioner had challenged the finding of the Tribunal in order dated 24th July, 2007 in WP(C) No.3902/2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 10th July, 2009. The petitioner had thereafter preferred a Review Petition before the High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 23rd August, 2009. The petitioner had thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition (C) against these two orders passed by the High Court but the same was dismissed on 12.3.2010.
8. Read in this light it is clear to us that the findings recorded in the order dated 24.7.2007 in OA No.996/2006 on the question of effective date of the order under Article 81(B) of the KVSE Code, is final and conclusive. The petitioner cannot now raise the same issue all over again. The findings recorded in the earlier proceedings in O.A. No. 996/2006 was to operate as res judicate and bind the petitioner.
(emphasis supplied)
37. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek initiation of contempt proceeding, on the basis of purported direction, which was not given by this Court, and seek the release of pension and gratuity with interest. Even otherwise, it may be stated here vide order dated October 16, 2019 in W.P.(C) 7869/2007, the petitioner vide CM. No. 10734/2019 had sought for release of gratuity, pension and other benefits. This Court in paragraph 2 clearly stated as under:
2. This application, in our view, is completely misconceived considering the facts that the services of the Petitioner were terminated by the Respondent and the said termination has been upheld by the Tribunal, by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The termination of service leads to forfeiture of pension and gratuity.
Hence this contempt petition is closed.
38. Similarly in so far as CONT.CAS(C) 998/2016, is concerned, same has been filed alleging violation of order dated October 16, 2019 by stating that, in terms of the said order, the respondent was required to release the compassionate allowances to the petitioner, but not a single penny has been released to him. Suffice to state that, this court in paragraph 3 of the order dated October 16, 2019, which refers to claim of the petitioner for compassionate allowances, has stated as under:
3. The Petitioner may, however, claim compassionate allowance under Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules. In case, he makes such claim or has already made the same, Respondents are directed to deal with the same and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.
39. From the above, it is clear that the direction was only to deal with the claim of the petitioner for compassionate allowances and pass appropriate order within four weeks.
40. Mr. Rajappa stated that the claim of compassionate allowance has already been rejected vide order dated November 27, 2019, annexed as Annexure-D to the written submission in the writ petition filed by the respondent. In the order dated November 27, 2019, the respondent has clearly made a reference to the order dated October 16, 2019 passed by this Court. If that be so, order dated October 16, 2019 with regard to compassionate allowance having been complied with; this contempt petition is not maintainable and is also closed.
41. In view of our conclusion above, nothing survive in the application filed in the writ petition and contempt petitions. The same are closed as having become infructuous / being without merit. All the pending applications are dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
APRIL 29, 2024/ds
W.P.(C) 7869/2007 & connected matters Page 20 of 20